Folks on the right defend the second amendment because it is necessary for the populace to defend itself if the government becomes tyrannical and corrupt. You guys on the right that love to cite that know it's not legal for U.S. citizens to engage in armed rebellion, right? I'm "confused" about how you can claim such a thing and then be in favor of the primacy of law and order. (Well, I'm not actually confused because the whole thing is really about race, and has nothing to do with either liberty or the rule of law as a general principle.)
At any rate, I tend to agree with the first statement as a matter of principle, and I secretly have for quite some time, even if it was pretty far from the "original intent" despite it's support by "constitutional originalists." I think my reasoning is starting to become less opaque in this particular era now that it's obvious that relying on "norms" is flawed at best. Government surveillance and authority has increased under both Democratic and Republican presidents for almost two decades now. The program Edward Snowden exposed (and Obama administration still sought to prosecute him for his whistleblowing) is now revealed to be
illegal.
I suppose before people could claim that such a thing didn't matter because we had "democratic norms and traditions" to protect us. I'd give them a pass. I would doubt the mental capacity of someone who would still claim such a thing now; I would hope that someone else would have power-of-attorney for those individuals.
